Search

Over the past decade, considerable progress has been made in the control, elimination, and eradication of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Despite these advances, most NTD programs have recently experienced important setbacks; for example, NTD interventions were some of the most frequently and severely impacted by service disruptions due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Mathematical modeling can help inform selection of interventions to meet the targets set out in the NTD road map 2021-2030, and such studies should prioritize questions that are relevant for decision-makers, especially those designing, implementing, and evaluating national and subnational programs. In September 2022, the World Health Organization hosted a stakeholder meeting to identify such priority modeling questions across a range of NTDs and to consider how modeling could inform local decision making. Here, we summarize the outputs of the meeting, highlight common themes in the questions being asked, and discuss how quantitative modeling can support programmatic decisions that may accelerate progress towards the 2030 targets.

BackgroundBrazil has the second highest annual number of new leprosy cases. The aim of this study is to formally compare predictions of future new case detection rate (NCDR) trends and the annual probability of NCDR falling below 10/100,000 of four different modelling approaches in four states of Brazil: Rio Grande do Norte, Amazonas, Ceará, Tocantins.MethodsA linear mixed model, a back-calculation approach, a deterministic compartmental model and an individual-based model were used. All models were fitted to leprosy data obtained from the Brazilian national database (SINAN). First, models were fitted to the data up to 2011, and predictions were made for NCDR for 2012-2014. Second, data up to 2014 were considered and forecasts of NCDR were generated for each year from 2015 to 2040. The resulting distributions of NCDR and the probability of NCDR being below 10/100,000 of the population for each year were then compared between approaches.ResultsEach model performed well in model fitting and the short-term forecasting of future NCDR. Long-term forecasting of NCDR and the probability of NCDR falling below 10/100,000 differed between models. All agree that the trend of NCDR will continue to decrease in all states until 2040. Reaching a NCDR of less than 10/100,000 by 2020 was only likely in Rio Grande do Norte. Prediction until 2040 showed that the target was also achieved in Amazonas, while in Ceará and Tocantins the NCDR most likely remain (far) above 10/100,000.ConclusionsAll models agree that, while incidence is likely to decline, achieving a NCDR below 10/100,000 by 2020 is unlikely in some states. Long-term prediction showed a downward trend with more variation between models, but highlights the need for further control measures to reduce the incidence of new infections if leprosy is to be eliminated.

BackgroundNew WHO guidelines recommend initiation of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-positive adults with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less, a higher threshold than was previously recommended. Country decision makers have to decide whether to further expand eligibility for antiretroviral therapy accordingly. We aimed to assess the potential health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various eligibility criteria for adult antiretroviral therapy and expanded treatment coverage.MethodsWe used several independent mathematical models in four settings-South Africa (generalised epidemic, moderate antiretroviral therapy coverage), Zambia (generalised epidemic, high antiretroviral therapy coverage), India (concentrated epidemic, moderate antiretroviral therapy coverage), and Vietnam (concentrated epidemic, low antiretroviral therapy coverage)-to assess the potential health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various eligibility criteria for adult antiretroviral therapy under scenarios of existing and expanded treatment coverage, with results projected over 20 years. Analyses assessed the extension of eligibility to include individuals with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less, or all HIV-positive adults, compared with the previous (2010) recommendation of initiation with CD4 counts of 350 cells per μL or less. We assessed costs from a health-system perspective, and calculated the incremental cost (in US$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted to compare competing strategies. Strategies were regarded very cost effective if the cost per DALY averted was less than the country's 2012 per-head gross domestic product (GDP; South Africa: $8040; Zambia: $1425; India: $1489; Vietnam: $1407) and cost effective if the cost per DALY averted was less than three times the per-head GDP.FindingsIn South Africa, the cost per DALY averted of extending eligibility for antiretroviral therapy to adult patients with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less ranged from $237 to $1691 per DALY averted compared with 2010 guidelines. In Zambia, expansion of eligibility to adults with a CD4 count threshold of 500 cells per μL ranged from improving health outcomes while reducing costs (ie, dominating the previous guidelines) to $749 per DALY averted. In both countries results were similar for expansion of eligibility to all HIV-positive adults, and when substantially expanded treatment coverage was assumed. Expansion of treatment coverage in the general population was also cost effective. In India, the cost for extending eligibility to all HIV-positive adults ranged from $131 to $241 per DALY averted, and in Vietnam extending eligibility to patients with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less cost $290 per DALY averted. In concentrated epidemics, expanded access for key populations was also cost effective.InterpretationOur estimates suggest that earlier eligibility for antiretroviral therapy is very cost effective in low-income and middle-income settings, although these estimates should be revisited when more data become available. Scaling up antiretroviral therapy through earlier eligibility and expanded coverage should be considered alongside other high-priority health interventions competing for health budgets.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO.